Loading...
11/13/1996 - Packet Book ....................... ........................................ .......... ....................... . . .............* . ..... ............. ................ ... ... . .......... ............... ................... .......... hi. id N . ................. ............. ...... . ........ .................... ....... .. ........... ................... .... ...... A 9-- E . ......... ........... ......... .......... is is ....... iii hY .......... ............... to . ......... . .......... .......... -30 ........... .0 . ... ...... .......... lWam. ttio S:.:::: r cczmmets 99.6� :Ab .......... Had .1-6 vato S v., .... um . .......... . . ........... ..... . .. ... xT c Rm Or Ap . ......... ..................... ........... . .. . ....... RTateruplypdte ... ........ 9. ........... .. ........ . Ad tmove I rr.menNaterj t SessWk: Th In' ** * '* ': ::: kiecutiv d ...... may.90 in 0:, Boar, ..... Session . .......sAwok4 gw.. ons,-- ::.p Pp :: 0P. 0 1an ..end cuzxent aid pendingdation issues. A discussions` tthn this se�surt :eunider�tal, 0 presentepresetatxves of the attend IW8 sesstc n, but musti not dtselas0.any cliss dU tlg :;:' session. INTERGOVE BEIINTAL WATER BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: Beverly Froude, John Budihas, and Paul Hunt MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Scheiderich and Robert Tydeman STAFF PRESENT: Ed Wegner, Mike Miller, Wayne Lowry, and Kathy Kaatz VISITORS PRESENT: Roald Lund 1. Call to Order The regular meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board was called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Vice-Chair Beverly Froude. 2 . Roll Call and Introductions Roll call was taken with Chair Bill Scheiderich absent as well as Robert Tydeman, representative from the City of Durham. 3 . Visitor Comments There were no visitors present, with the exception of Mr. Lund who was on the agenda (item #7) . 4. Approval of Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Budihas to approve the minutes of the May 15, 1996 meeting as well as the July 10, 1996 meeting minutes. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Hunt. S. Letter for Adjustment - Roald Lund The Board decided to move and discuss agenda item #7 prior to reviewing Mr. Lund' s request for adjustment. Mr. Lowry, Finance Director gave some background information on the current leak procedure. Mr. Lowry stated that he had supplied the Board with a memo outlining the new leak proposal . Previously the IWB with later approval by the City Council, approved (January) the Tigard Municipal Code, a portion of whidh dealt with water leaks. Currently when a customer has a proven water leak, the staff credits the customer account -up to $165 for half of the cost of their water leak (covers a leak up to $330) . This covers excess water usage not including their average water usage. If the customer is not satisfied, they have the right to appeal in writing, to the IWB. This reflects the current policy which is the same policy the District had prior to the merger although the dollar amount has increased a few times. Mr. Lowry continued by stating that during a recent IWB meeting, Mr. Rolf (in place of Commissioner Hunt) stated that the customer should pay for the wholesale water that was lost, which does not include the operation and maintenance costs. The last three leaks that have come before the Board have been handled in this manner. Mr. Lund who is present at this meeting, is in a little more distressed position due to the size of the water loss. Mr. Lund does have a 111 meter which accounted for a quicker, larger water loss. Mr. Lowry stated that the staff is willing to implement any policy that the Board feels is appropriate. Mr. Lowry stated that some of the options available are: • Keep the policy at one half of the water loss with no maximum; • increase the maximum that staff could deal with; • create new policy that is consistent with the way the last adjustments have been handled. This policy would have the customer pay for the wholesale water that is lost. Mr. Lowry stated that the rate used in the previous adjustments has been sixty cents per 100 cf which was the amount paid to Lake Oswego last year. An average wholesale rate could be applied to water leaks and not have a maximum which would mean that if someone loses 500 units, staff would apply the wholesale rate of water, times the number of units which determine the amount the customer would be responsible for paying, with the balance been written off as credit. Mr. Lowry continued by stating that the staff could come up with the appropriate rate each July 1 for the next year. Mr. Lowry stated that the contracts between the City and Portland and Tualatin Valley Water District have brought these average costs up to an estimated seventy cents per unit (outlined in memo) . Since Mr. Lund' s water loss occurred during May/June, his adjustment should reflect the previous sixty cents rate. Commissioner Budihas questioned the amount of units used by Mr. Lund? Mr. Lowry stated that Mr. Lund' s excess usage was 837 units after subtracting his normal usage. Mr. Lowry stated that the Board could still have the option of dealing with leaks above the policy. The current policy allows a customer to come to the Board. IWB MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 PAGE 2 Mr. Lowry stated that the Board needs to decide what they would like the policy to be and how it should be structured and then go back and amend the Code and take the recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Hunt stated that consideration should be given to how quickly the customer has taken care of the problem and the method used in notifying the customer of the high usage. Mr. Wegner clarified that a meter is re-read to verify the high reading. Commissioner Budihas stated that will the cost of water usage increase? Mr. Lowry stated that it is likely that this cost will increase but will be reflected with the actual costs of water (increase or decrease) . Mr. Wegner stated that since the water is purchased from another purveyor, we pay for that water whether it is a main break or a customer break. It is important that we do not have lost water revenue. Commissioner Froude stated that Tualatin Valley Water District' s policy is a 50%- adjustment on excess water usage less normal water use. Commissioner Froude stated that if the Board decides to go with a figure (possibly 500) would this eliminate the $165 credit amount and eliminate customers from appealing to the Board? Commissioner Hunt stated that the policy could still allow the customer the right to appeal to the Board. Mr. Wegner stated that the new policy would change from the current $165 credit to seventy cents per unit, less usual consumption and the customer still has the right to appeal to the Board. This new policy would cover the costs of the water purchased. Commissioner Froude stated that when the customer comes in, they will need to provide repair bills or such to show that this was indeed a bonafide leak. Mr. Lowry stated that this policy will state that the costs will be adjusted yearly to cover actual costs. Commissioner Froude stated that this new policy information needs to get out to the customers, perhaps in the Cityscape or in billings. Mr. Lowry stated that if someone has a leak they contact the office to discuss the options available. Commissioner Budihas questioned how many bills have we paid out the $165 credit? Mr. Lowry stated that we have had four appeals following the February storms. The Board discussed whether there is a need to specify in the policy that the leak needs to be fixed within a certain time period? It was decided that since the water had been turned off since discovery of the leak, it is assumed that it will be fixed promptly so water service can be restored. IWB MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 PAGE 3 Mr. Lowry stated that the policy should include the average wholesale water rate which will be determined by the Finance Director. The Board stated that the TMC would be changed to state that: When a water leak occurs on the customer's side of the water meter resulting in a unusually high water bill, customers can apply for a credit to their water bill above average usage equal to the average wholesale water costs as determined by the Finance Director and voted upon by the Intergovernmental Water Board. Customers must apply for credit in writing, to the City, and forward proof of the leak being fixed in a timely manner. Any application for credit over the amount allowed will be reviewed by the Intergovernmental Water Board. Mr. Lowry stated that he would provide the policy proposal revisions to the Board and then would like to take it to City Council in October. Coamtissioner Budihas made a motion to change the Tigard Municipal Code 12.10.070 - Credit for Water Leaks, wording to be changed to reflect the Board' s Discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hunt and passed unanimously. The Board discussed whether these revisions should be approved by the Board members that were not present at this meeting. Since the three members present constituted a quorum, the information could be passed along to the other members. Letter of Adjustment - Roald Lund Mr. Lowry stated that Mr. Lund's billing reflected the usage of 837 units of water over the usual usage for this account. If we charged him at the rate of sixty cents per unit, Mr. Lund would be paying 502 .20 with a credit of 704.72 since his total leak cost was for $1206 .00. Mr. Wegner stated that when we replace old meters with new, these new meters run faster and will increase billing. Mr. Lund stated that he was very satisfied with the outcome of the Board' s decision and that he will be regularly checking his meter in the future. 6. Director's Report Mr. Wegner discussed the progress of the Menlor Reservoir site. Mr. Wegner stated that they have held one neighborhood meeting which went very well and they have met with the County on future park pVoperty and the property they are considering is adjacent to the Menlor site. ' Murray, Smith and Associates IWB MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 PAGE 4 / a have turned in the permit to the County and the hearing will be scheduled in October. Staff will be holding another meeting on the site on a Saturday in September. Once this date is determined we will notify Board members. The process has begun on having the tree survey done and at this time there appears to be no opposition to the proposed reservoir. Mr. Wegner continued to say that although they have had difficulty contacting the property owner in Round Tree Estates (easement issue) , they do not anticipate any problems and MSA is continuing to work on the design as discussed. Regional Water Supply Plan and Consortium will have the final draft out in next couple of weeks. Will have a draft of the IGA. Bill Monahan and Mr. Wegner are negotiating with Lake Oswego on a water sales contract to purchase surplus water - no parterning. Looks as though the contract will be for five years with regular renewals. Sub Regional Committee. Have had two meetings with Water Commissioner this summer on water rights application and expect a decision by October. System Development Charges - Effective December 1 will increase as recommended by CH2M Hill. The only testimony received was a request from the Homebuilders Association to change the effective date to January 1 which was compromised to December 1. Back in April/May agreed to purchase 1 mgd from Portland, with the additional demand staff agreed to increase purchase to 2 mgd and have notified Lake Oswego (mid July) . Randy Volk has retired his position as Utility Manager and the Department is currently advertising to fill his position. The Property Manager for the City of Tigard has also left the organization to move to Texas. The Operation Manager is working on water and special projects. Commissioner Budihas stated that in the sidewalk area in King City (King Richard @ 128th, at the park, 13020 Carmel) there are small plates that are raising up that are labeled water. Mr Wegner stated they will check on them and get back to him. 7 . Non Agenda Items Commissioner Froude questioned whether the Board would like to contribute to the Peggy Manning Memorial Fund? Mr. Wegner stated that he would check on whether this could be taken from IWB MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 PAGE 5 City funds. Commissioner Hunt stated if this was not appropriate to be taken from Water fund, the Board members could contribute individually. Discussed that the Sprint Mono pole went up today and a check was received yesterday in the amount of $8,000 for the remainder of the year. 8. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Budihas to adjourn which was seconded by Commissioner Hunt. kathyUwWl l.min IWB MEETING MINUTES - 'SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 PAGE 6 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: IWB Members FROM: Ed Wegner DATE: October 30, 1996 SUBJECT: Regional Water Supply Plan - Final Draft & Consortium IGA Included in this packet you will find the "Final' draft of the Regional Water Supply Plan and an Intergovernmental Agreement setting forth a Provider's Consortium. The newsletter that is also enclosed includes a detailed summary of the Final Regional Water Supply Plan and an explanation of accomplishment that the Regional Consortium hopes to attain. I have also included an outline dated April 1996 of the major revision topics. I have presented the plan to the Tigard City council during work session. On -November 13, 1 will review the document with you and recommend forwarding to the Tigard City Council for adoption in late November. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me. Thank you. kathy\iwb\RWSPfinl MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Ed Wegner FROM: Mike Millerdj� DATE: November 7, 1996 SUBJECT: Capital Improvement Program Update During this last calendar year, the Water Division has spent a large portion of its resources dealing with various City, State, and County road improvement projects. Most of these projects impacted water meter and service line locations and placement. A few of the projects involve relocating portions of water mains or the installation of new water mains all together. Here is a breakdown of each project and the costs associated with the work: SW Durham Road,from Hall Blvd.to SW Upper Boones Ferry Road This is a State project funded with MSTIP 2 funds from Washington County. Work involved widening the street from two lanes to three; construction of a new bridge; bike lanes; sidewalks; vertical and horizontal realignment; and improvements to the railroad crossing. Impacts to the City water system were: relocation of four (4) fire hydrants, eleven (11) 3/4-inch water meter/services, two (2) 1-inch water meter/services, one (1) 2-inch water meter/service and adjust eight(8)valve boxes. Cost$18,585.47. SW Hall Blvd.,from 99W to SW McDonald St. This is a State project that consists of widening the street to include a bike lane and new storm drain system. Impacts to the City water system were: replacement of 200 feet of 6-inch water main, installation of two (2) new fire hydrants, relocation of three (3)fire hydrants, five(5) 2-inch services, seven (7) 3/4- inch water services and adjust six(6) valve boxes. This project is still under construction. Costs to date are $39,955.51. SW 130th Avenue extension,from SW Scholls Ferry Road to SW Hawks Beard This is a new street construction project designed by the City. The Water Division budgeted funds during the 1996-97 fiscal year toy extend 300 feet of 8-inch water main and install two fire hydrants as part of this project. Cost$43;815. Summer Creek(130th Avenue) Bridge This is a new City bridge project that expands over Summer Creek and connects SW 130th Avenue to SW Winter Lake Drive. The Water Division budgeted funds during the 1996-97 fiscal year to complete a 12-inch water main loop as part this City project The water project consisted of making connections to the existing 12-inch water mains installation of 300 feet 12-inch water main and creek crossing. Cost$28,222.96. SW Commercial Street.from SW Main to Hall Blvd. This is a City project that consists of widening the street and installation of sidewalks. Impacts to the City Water system include replacement of two (2) 2-inch water services and relocation of two 1 1/2-inch water meters. This project is still under construction. Costs to date are $3,300. SW Beef Bend Road, SW 131st Avenue to King Arthur. This is a County project that will be funded by MSTIP 3. The project consists of widening Beef Bend road from two lanes to three, retaining walls, sidewalks, storm drainage improvements and vertical and horizontal realignment. This project is currently 90% designed and in the process of right-of-way acquisition. The County may postpone this project depending upon the out come of Measure 47. Impacts to the City water system include the total replacement of the existing 12-inch water main within this project After examining the growth potential in this area of the and taking into account the water demands, it wad determined that a 24-inch water main should be installed to replace the 12-inch water main in this area. Eventually, a 24-inch water main will need to be extended from SW King Arthur to Pacific Highway and Gaarde Street. The 24-inch water main alignment, for the County MSTIP 3 project, is currently in the design stage. r �s INTER-GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT OF REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM �I TABLE-OF CONTENTS I Section 1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Section 2. Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Section 3. Endorsement of Regional Water Supply Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Section 4. Cooperation and Participants' Retained Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Section 5. Consortium Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Section 6. Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 6 Section7. Dues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Section 8. Work Plan and Budgeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Section 9. Consortium Board . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Section 10. Consortium Technical Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Section 11. Consortium Technical Subcommittee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Section 12. Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '13 Section 13. Duration and Dissolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 13 Section 14. Legal Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Section 15. Oregon Law and Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . . . . . 14 Section 16. Public Notification . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERSCQNSORTIUM This Inter-Governmental Agreement is entered into by and among the under- signed municipalities and districts, hereinafter called "Participants," to establish and operate the Water Providers Consortium for the Portland Metropolitan Region. RECITALS WHEREAS, ORS Chapter 190 authorizes units of local government to enter into written agreements with any other unit or units of local government for the performance of any or all functions and activities that any of them has authority to provide; and WHEREAS, all the Participants of this Agreement are thus authorized to enter into an inter-governmental agreement; and WHEREAS, many of the water providers of the Portland metropolitan area have been meeting together since 1989 through an informal group called the Regional Providers Advisory Group to coordinate water supply planning efforts; and WHEREAS,twenty seven of the area's water providers agreed in May, 1993, through the Inter-Governmental Agreement to Fund Phase Two of the Regional Water Supply Plan jointly to fund an integrated Regional Water Supply Plan and have been meeting monthly since then as the Phase Two Participants Committee to manage the development of that Regional Water Supply Plan; and WHEREAS, a draft of the resulting Regional Water Supply Plan has been circulated for public review since September, 1995; and WHEREAS, a final Regional Water Supply Plan has now been completed; and WHEREAS,that Regional Water Supply Plan contains specific recommendations for future cooperation and coordination between the water providers in this region through the formation of a regional water providers consortium; and . 1 WHEREAS, as the Regional land use agency under state law and Regional charter, the Metropolitan Service District("METRO") has.responsibilities to plan and coordinate the provision of public facilities in the region, including responsibilities created by the Metro Charter requiring that Metro's Regional framework plan address water sources and water storage; and WHEREAS, Metro has adopted Regional goals and objectives to encourage coordinated planning and management of water resources to ensure a sufficient water supply for the region; and WHEREAS,Metro's participation in preparation of the Regional Water Supply Plan and this Agreement is consistent with its regional coordination functions and its Charter responsibilities; and WHEREAS, Metro's adoption of the Regional Water Supply Plan and execution of this Agreement are important parts of Metro studies preliminary to adoption of a water supply component of its regional framework plan; and WHEREAS, the Participants desire to enter into an inter-governmental agreement in order to endorse the Regional Water Supply Plan and coordinate and cooperate in its implementation; NOW,THEREFORE, the Participants agree as follows: Section L Definitions For purposes of this Agreement the following terms shall be defined as follows: "Agreement" - This document and any authorized amendments thereto. "Consortium" - Shall mean all Participants to this Agreement acting pursuant to and under the terms of the Agreement. "Consortium Board" - Shall-mean the Board of Directors established by Section 9 of this Agreement, consisting of one representative from the governing board, commission or council of each Consortium Participant. 2 "Consortium Funds" - Consortium funds shall consist of all dues, voluntary contributions, grant monies and funding from any other source provided to the Consortium to conduct the activities and business of the Consortium. "Consortium Technical Subcommittee" - Shall mean the Committee established by Section 11 of this Agreement consisting of ten of the Technical Committee members. "Consortium Technical Committee" - Shall mean the Committee established by Section 10 of this Agreement, consisting of one staff representative appointed by the governing board, commission, or council of each Participant. "Plan' - That document dated October, 1996, entitled Regional Water Supply Plan for the Portland Metropolitan Area, referred to herein as the"Plan." ection 2. Purposes The general purposes of the Consortium are as follows: A. To promote the voluntary coordination of individual and collective actions of Participants implementing the Plan; B. To serve as the central custodian for Plan documents, including computer ' models; C. To review and recommend revisions to the Plan, as appropriate; D. To provide a forum for the study and discussion of water supply issues of mutual interest to Participants and to coordinate the responses of Participants to such issues; E. To provide a forum for review and discussion of water resource related issues preliminary to any final actions by individual Participants,regarding issues which could be considered to relate to application of the statewide land use goals, comprehensive plans,regional plans, or land use regulations; F. To establish an avenue for public participation in water supply issues in ►` : addition to public participation activities of the individual Participants. 3 Section 3. Endorsement of Plan A. By entering into this Agreement, the individual Participants endorse the Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and agree to cooperate among themselves in its implementation. B. The Participants have endorsed the Plan in order to provide guidance for individual water supply decisions and to provide an outline for Regional water supply cooperation. Endorsement of the Plan and coordination of its implementation by the Consortium are part of the ongoing commitment of the Participants jointly to study and coordinate means to meet the water supply needs for the region. The Plan does not, however,require any mandatory action by any Participant. Each Participant jurisdiction remains responsible for determining and adopting appropriate comprehensive and functional plan provisions, including city and county public facility plans and special district capital improvement plans. The Plan is not any part of any Participant's comprehensive land use plan or framework plan or implementing regulations unless an individual participant takes such action. No part of the Plan or any coordinated activity of the Consortium constitutes a final land use decision by any Participant applying statewide or regional land use goals, comprehensive plans, functional plans, and/or land use regulations. For any part of the Plan to be applied to a Participant's land use actions, direct action to that effect is required by that Participant. Section Cooperation and Participants' Retained Powers The Participants intend that the Consortium shall act through the processes laid out herein in the spirit of cooperation. Unless specifically provided for herein,by entering into this Agreement, no Participant has assigned or granted to any other or to the Consortium its water rights or the power to plan, construct, and operate its water system or perform any other obligation or duty assigned to it under law. Section-5. Consortium Authority In accomplishing its purposes, and utilizing the organizational structure and decision-making processes contained herein,the Consortium is authorized to: A. Adopt by-laws and other operating procedures consistent with the terms of. this Agreement to govern Consortium operation and administration, including such things as meeting arrangements,voting procedures, election of officers of Consortium 4 component boards or committees, notice procedures, procedures for execution of legal documents such as contracts,budgeting, and financial operations. B. Adopt and implement an annual work plan and issue annual reports and such supplementary reports as the Consortium may determine appropriate; C. Collect regular dues from Participants to support the routine business of the Consortium in amounts established as provided herein; D. Accept voluntary contributions from Participants in amounts higher than the regular dues for the purpose of conducting studies or engaging in other activities consistent with the Consortium purposes; E. Apply for and receive grants and accept other funds from any person or entity to carry on Consortium activities; F. Expend Consortium funds, however obtained, and establish accounts and accounting processes to manage Consortium funds or utilize the accounts and processes of Participants for such purposes under appropriate agreements; G. Execute contracts to obtain goods and services and to enter into arrangements whereby Participants may contract on behalf of the Consortium to obtain goods and services; H. Execute intergovernmental agreements; I. Establish procedures for the hiring and firing of its own staff; J. Accept assignment of staff from individual Participants to conduct Consortium work and to reimburse the Participants for the salary and other costs associated with the assigned staff; K. Establish procedures.and criteria whereby other units of government may enter into this Agreement subsequent to its initial creation by the execution of the Agreement by fifteen or more Participants, subject to the provisions herein enabling any Participantin.the Inter-Governmental Agreement to Fund Phase Two of the Plan to join as a Participant of the Consortium at any time after the Consortium's creation; 5 L. Establish a process to coordinate Participant.response to water policy issues of mutual concern; M. Establish procedures to solicit the views of the public on water supply and water resource issues within the Consortium's purview; N. Establish a process whereby water policy and water supply disputes or disagreements among Participants may be resolved; O. Protect Consortium rights and enforce obligations owed to the Consortium by third parties to the extent permitted by law;. P. Take other action within the powers specifically granted the Consortium herein by the Participants to exercise the authority granted in subsections A. through O. above and to carry out the purposes stated in Section 2 above. Section 6. Participants A. Participants in General. Any Participant in the Inter-Governmental Agreement to Fund Phase Two of the Plan, as listed in Exhibit B to this Agreement, may initially join the Consortium at any time. Any Participant which, having once joined, withdraws or is expelled from the Consortium for non-payment of dues, may only re join as provided in Section 7F. Participants in Phase Two may join in their own name or in the name of a separate inter-governmental entity, but not both. (For example, the Cities of West Linn and Oregon City may join as two separate Participants or as-one, in the name of the South Fork Water Board.) B. Initial Creation By Fifteen Participants. The Consortium shall be created and this Agreement shall become effective upon its execution by fifteen or more Participants in the Inter-Governmental Agreement to Fund Phase Two of the Plan. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts. C. Additional Participants. . The Consortium Board may accept additional governmental entities as Participants into the Consortium under terms and financial arrangements that the Board determines just and appropriate. The Board may establish standards for membership in its by-laws or may allow new members to join on a case by:. : case basis. Provided,however,that in all cases, no new member may join the Consortium without the affirmative vote of a majority of the Board. 6 D. Withdrawal. Any Participant may withdraw from the Consortium at any time by giving written notice to the Chair of the Consortium Board. Consortium dues already paid shall not be refunded to the-withdrawing Participant. To the extent it is able to do so, any Participant intending to withdraw from the Consortium shall endeavor to advise the Chair of that fact prior to February 1 and the.approval of the Consortium's next fiscal year's budget. Sec= Dues A. Each Participant of the Consortium shall pay annual dues no later than fund the approved annual budget of the September 1 of each year sufficient to Consortium, as established by the Board, provided, however,that the Board may establish a different payment amount and/or schedule for a Participant upon request from that Participant or upon the Board's own motion. B. The dues of each water provider Participant shall be determined annually as follows: 1. Total annual dues for all members shall be set to equal the annual budget for the Consortium,not counting budget items to be funded by fewer than all the Participants as provided in Section 8.C., and taking into account any grants or non-dues monies available to fund the annual budget. 2. The total annual dues of Participants that are not water providers shall then be subtracted from the total annual dues-based budget, described in subsection 7.B.1. above, leaving a budget number to be funded by provider dues. Dues shall be set so that the dues of each water provider reflects its proportional share of that sum based on the following formula: (a) 25% of the total provider dues shall be allocated proportionally based on the individual provider's proportional share of the total number of all Participants' retail customer accounts for the prior year; (b) 25%of the total provider dues shall be allocated proportionally based on the individual provider's proportional share of total average daily retail.water use(in million gallons a day) in the prior year of all Participants; 7 (c) 50% of the total provider dues shall be allocated proportionally based on the individual provider's share of the projected incremental growth in average daily summer peak season use (in million gallons a day) of all Participants. The projected incremental growth in use shall be based on the total incremental growth of all Participants projected from the first to the last year of the regional water demand forecast contained in the Plan or any more recent regional forecast approved as a Plan Amendment by the Consortium Board or the Participants' governing boards, commissions, or councils. C. The amount of Metro's dues shall be established each year in the Annual Work Plan and budget. Metro's dues may include in-kind contributions. D. The dues obligation of any additional Participant that is not a water provider shall be established by the Consortium Board at the time it approves an entity's membership. E. A Participant that fails to pay its assigned dues by September 1 or a time otherwise established by the Board pursuant to Section 7A. shall be automatically removed as a Consortium Participant. F. Upon a majority vote of the Board, a defaulting Participant(or a Participant that has previously withdrawn from membership) may be reinstated in the Consortium upon its agreement to pay its dues for the year during which it wishes to rejoin (calculated as if the entity had been a Participant at the time the budget was approved). Upon receipt of such dues by a rejoining member, the Board shall re-calculate the dues owed by other entities and provide a credit on the next year's dues to Participants who paid more than their total dues as recalculated. G. If a new entity joins the Consortium as a Participant during an annual dues cycle, its dues and those of the existing Participants shall be calculated as follows: 1. If a new Participant is a water provider, its dues requirement will be calculated pursuant to Section 7.B. above. 2. If a new member is not a water provider, its dues will be determined as provided in Section 7.D. above. J 3. The initial year.dues for a new Participant joining partway through a budget cycle will be pro-rated to reflect partial year membership. _ 8 4. Upon addition of a new Participant part way through a budget cycle, the current year dues for existing Participants will be re-calculated and re-assigned as follows: (a) The new Participant's initial year dues will be deducted from the total current dues-based budget. (b) The remaining budget amount will be allocated to existing members in accordance with the percentage of the budget each Participant was assigned in the current annual budget. (c) Existing members shall receive a credit on their next year's dues payment for any amounts they paid as dues that are greater than their revised dues obligation as determined herein. 5. New Participants joining at any time after September 1 shall pay . their initial year dues by the following September or at a time otherwise established by the Board upon admission of the new Participant. Section 8. Work Plan and Budgeting A. By February 1 of each year,the Board shall adopt an annual work plan of Consortium activities for the upcoming fiscal year beginning on July 1. B. At the same time,the Board shall adopt a budget sufficient to conduct the Consortium's Annual Work Plan. The budget shall also include a calculation of the dues owed by each Participant to fund the budget as provided in Section 7,taking into account any grants or non-dues funds available to the Consortium, and a table apportioning the dues to each Participant. C. The budget may include special studies that will be funded by fewer than all of the Participants on a voluntary basis. D. The Board may amend the budget and the work plan at any time during the . year as it deems appropriate except that-dues may only be increased annually as provided for in Section 7. Additional expenditures may be permitted so long as there are identified sources of revenue, other than.increased dues,-for such expenditure(s). 9 E. Participants are expected to provide to Consortium staff the data necessary to calculate the annual dues for budgeting and planning. Section-9. Consortium Board A. The Consortium Board shall be made up of one representative from the governing board, commission, or council of each Participant. Each Participant shall also name an alternate Board representative from its governing board, commission, or council to serve in case the primary representative cannot. Provided, however, that if the Board Chair does not attend a meeting, the Vice-Chair shall assume the Chair's duties rather than the Chair's alternate. B. Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties may each also name a representative (and alternate)to serve on the Board as non-voting ex officio members of the Board. C. The Board is authorized to: (1) approve the Consortium's annual work plan and budget; (2) set Consortium policy; (3) approve new Consortium Participants; (4) recommend water supply,water planning, and regional cooperation actions to Participant governing boards, commissions, or councils, especially, but not limited to, actions to implement the Plan; (5) approve minor amendments to the Plan; (6)recommend to the governing boards, commissions, or councils of the Consortium Participants major .. amendments to the Plan; (7)periodically review the Plan comprehensively, on a schedule providing for review at least every five years, commencing with the date upon which the Consortium is formed, or on a shorter schedule determined by the Board; (8) recommend to the governing boards, commissions, or councils of the Consortium Participants amendments to this Agreement; (9) adopt by-laws; (10) exercise any other powers and authority granted to the Consortium by this Agreement necessary to accomplish the Consortium's purposes. D. The Board shall have the authority to designate which Plan Amendments are major and which are minor for purposes of determining the process for amendment consideration. Generally,major amendment to the Plan should include revisions to the Plan's policy objectives,resource strategies, or implementation actions which significantly alter Plan direction or would significantly change the implementation strategies. Minor amendments are all other changes to the Plan. 10 E. Upon its first meeting, the Board shall elect a.-temporary Chair and Vice- Chair and shall proceed within three months thereafter to adopt such by-laws as it deems advisable, consistent with this Agreement. Consistent with the terms of this Agreement, the by-laws shall, at least, (1) establish the offices of Chair and,Vice-Chair and determine their terms, their general duties, and the method for their election; (2) establish how the Participants' governing boards, commissions, or councils shall notify the Consortium of their appointment of Board members and alternates; (3) establish a method to allow additional entities to join the Consortium; (4) establish a method to determine timing of meetings, provided that the Board must meet at least once a year; (5) establish a process for resolution of disputes among Participants; and (6) establish a method whereby the Board can create subcommittees of itself and other advisory committees or bodies to assist the Board in conducting its business, including a standing"Executive Committee." In creating a Board Executive Committee,the Board shall endeavor to achieve geographic representation and representation from municipalities, districts, and other types of entities that form the Participants' group. F. Each year in the annual work plan or its amendments, the Board may assign such duties or delegate such Board authority as the Board deems advisable to any Board committee or to the Technical Committee, except that the Board may not delegate the authority (1)to execute inter-governmental agreements, (2)to designate Plan amendments as minor or major, (3)to recommend major Plan Amendments or amendments to this Agreement, (4)to approve the annual work plan and the budget, (5) to approve minor Plan amendments, (6)to approve the admission of Participants to the Consortium, or(7)to dissolve the Consortium. G. To be effective, Board actions must be approved by a vote of a majority of the Board at a meeting at which a quorum of two-thirds of the Board is present. Section 10. Consortium Technical Committee A. The Consortium Technical Committee shall be made up of one staff representative appointed by the governing board, commission, or council of each- Participant. Each governing board, commission, or council shall also name a Technical Committee representative alternate to serve when the primary representative cannot. Provided,however,that if the Technical Committee Chair does not attend a meeting,the Vice-Chair shall assume the Chair's duties rather than the Chair's alternate. 11 B. The Technical Committee shall advise and provide assistance to the Board on any matters falling within the Consortium's purview under this Agreement, shall direct the work of the Technical Subcommittee, and may act upon Board delegation of authority as provided in Section 9F. C. The Technical Committee shall, upon its first meeting, elect a temporary Chair and Vice-Chair and shall proceed within three months thereafter to adopt such by- laws for its operation as it deems advisable, consistent with this Agreement. The by-laws shall, at least, (a) establish the offices of Chair and Vice-Chair and determine their terms, their general duties, and the method for their election; (b) establish how the Participants' governing boards, commissions, or councils shall notify the Consortium of their appointment of Technical Committee members and alternates; (c) establish a method to determine timing of meetings, provided that the Technical Committee must meet at least three times a year; and (d) establish a method whereby the Technical Committee can create subcommittees of itself and other advisory committees or bodies to assist the Technical Committee in conducting its business. D. The Technical Committee shall, at its discretion, assign duties and tasks to and direct the work of the Technical Subcommittee. E. To be effective, Technical Committee actions must be approved by a vote of a majority of the Committee at a meeting at which a quorum of two-thirds of the Committee is present. Section 11. Consortium Technical Subcommittee A. The Consortium Technical Subcommittee shall be made up of ten of the Technical Committee members (or, as required,their alternates) as follows: 1. Three of the Technical Subcommittee representatives must come from Participants in Clackamas County,three from Washington County, and three from Multnomah County, and one from Metro. Further, in each County, if possible.given the Consortium membership,there must be at least one representative from a city and one from a special district. 2. The Technical Subcommittee representatives for each county shall be selected by the vote of the Technical Committee representatives for each county, provided,however,that in any case the Chair of the Technical Committee shall,without requiring election, be automatically named to the Technical Subcommittee as one of the 12 s County representatives or as the Metro representative, as appropriate, and shall be Chair of the Technical Subcommittee, as well. If the relevant Technical Committee members are unable to select the required three Technical Subcommittee,members from a county, then the Board representatives for the relevant county or counties shall select Technical Subcommittee members. B. The Technical Subcommittee shall operate under the supervision of and advise the Technical Committee on any matters within the Consortium's purview. It is anticipated that the Technical Subcommittee shall, under the direction of the Technical Committee, or as provided for in any agreement or contract to provide staffing, supervise Consortium staff(including employees of Participants assigned to the Consortium) and assume the responsibility to draft proposed work plans, budgets, annual and other reports, plan amendments, and implementation proposals for submission to the Technical Committee for review and submission to the Board. C. To be effective, actions or recommendations for action by the Technical Subcommittee must be approved by a majority vote of those members present and voting at a meeting at which a quorum of a majority of the Technical Subcommittee is present. Section 12. Dispute Resolution The Participants intend to work cooperatively to accomplish the water resource strategies of the Plan and the purposes of this Agreement. It is understood, however, that there may be disagreements among the Participants on issues within the purview of the Consortium. The Consortium will also, therefore, provide a forum whereby such disagreements may be aired and, if possible, resolved. The,Board shall establish a mandatory, but non-binding dispute resolution mechanism through its by-laws. Section 13. Duration and Dissolution This Agreement shall remain in effect, subject to the following: (1) any Participant may withdraw at any time as provided in this Agreement; (2) should all but one Participant withdraw,the Agreement shall end and the Consortium shall be dissolved; (3)the Agreement may be ended and the Consortium dissolved by a vote of the Board. 13 Section 14. Legal Liability Participants agree to share any costs or damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, from third party actions against the Consortium. The obligation shall apply to any entity that was a Participant in the Consortium at the time the liability arose or the cause of action accrued. Payment obligations shall be proportional to the dues of each entity. Participants agree to assist and cooperate in the defense of such an action. Settlement of any action that would impose an obligation to pay upon the Participants under this provision must be approved by a majority of the Board. Section 15. Oregon Law and Forum A. This Agreement shall be construed according to the law of the State of Oregon. B. Any litigation between the Participants under this Agreement or arising out of work performed under this Agreement shall occur, if in the state courts, in the Multnomah County Court having jurisdiction thereof, and if in the federal courts, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Section 16, Public Notification Meetings of the Consortium Board, the Consortium Technical Committee, and any subcommittees of those bodies shall be considered open meetings as provided by law. DATED this day of , 1996. 14 PHASE 2 of the REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN PARTICIPANTS: City of Beaverton Canby Utility Board Clackamas River Water City of Gladstone Damascus Water District City of Fairview City of Gresham City of Hillsboro Utilities Commission City of Forest Grove City of Lake Oswego Metro City of Milwaukie Mt. Scott Water District Oak Lodge Water District City of Portland Raleigh Hills Water District Rockwood Water City of Sandy City of Sherwood South Fork Water Board: City of Oregon City/City of West Linn City of Tigard Water Department City of Troutdale City of Tualatin Tualatin Valley Water District West Slope Water District City of Wilsonville City of Wood Village A k d '. ,�.'.rte....a>•_ ,.-...frc �,,.�.y.-..+'� - -�.�. r - �. a t` ,Y. 1996 Oregon Water/Wastewater Rate Survey `oduction Minimum Bills Stack & Veatch is pleased to present its 1996 Oregon Minimum bills represent the fixed monthly service charge _er/Wastewater Rate Survey. The survey, intended to which is assessed regardless of whether or not water is used, provide useful comparative information on utility rates, was or the flat monthly rate for those utilities that do not bill based conducted by our Management Consulting Division (MCD) on water volume. and reflects rates effective as of May 1996. MCD provides As shown in Figure 2, the average residential monthly management and financial consulting services to municipal minimum bill For water is $7.70 and ranges from $2.98 to utilities in Oregon and across the nation. $18.80. Of the water utilities surveyed, 33 percent include a The survey covers municipal water and wastewater water usage allowance in their minimum bill, ranging from utilities for representative cities with populations of 10,000 or 2.000 gallons to 7,000 gallons per month. greater. It should be note that some of these cities provide The average residential monthly minimum bill for service outside their municipal boundaries or are served by wastewater is$12.08 and ranges from$3.48 to$22.60. Of the utility districts or county operated systems. wastewater minimum bills shown in the survey, 42 percent Observations on residential rate increases and design represent flat monthly charges which range from $9.84 to practices follow this brief introduction. Summary data of the $22.60. Wastewater minimum bills with fixed service charges surveyed municipalities,followed by graphical comparisons of range from$3.48 to$16.14. Only 12.5 percent of the utilities typical residential water and wastewater bills are shown at the surveyed include a usage allowance with wastewater minimum end of this document. bills. Rate Increase Trends 25 Water and wastewater utilities are facing increased costs $22.60 in order to meet existing and future regulatory and capacity '0 $18.80 requirements in addition to the growing need to replace and rehabilitate existing systems.The result is increased rates to nd the necessary capital programs and increased operating 15 sts.Oregon utilities typify this trend. A significant indicator $12.08 of municipalities efforts to stay abreast of their revenue needs io - - - - - - - - . . . is the frequency with which they increase their rates. As s7.70 shown in Figure I, 65 percent of the utilities surveyed implemented increases so far in 1996. Another 14 percent { 52.98 $3.48 implemented increases in 1995, 19 percent increased in 1994, and 2 percent increased in 1993. o 171 , Low Average High Low Average High Water Wastewater 1894 1993 19% Figure.2 Range of Monthly Residential Minimum Bills 2% a 1995 Public attention, heightened by rapidly increasing utility costs,has recently focused on the impact minimum bills have on low and fixed income users. Communities with relatively high minimum bills may want to examine alternative minimum charge design approaches to reduce cost impacts on low and fired income users. Alternative approaches include eliminatin_,minimum volume allowances or shifting, additional costs to the volume charge component of rates. Lifeline or 1998 ,enlor-citizen discount rates have also been adopted b,, some 85X utilities to address ability-to-pay issues for specific customer Figure 1 Year of Last Water and Wastewater Rate Increase as a Percent _n cups. Such rate structures are usually in the torm of a of Total Utilities Surveyed reduced minimum charge or a reduced commodity charee for Irnv volume users targeted at fixed income residents. Black & Veatch 1996 Oregon Water/ Management Consulting Division 1 Wastewater Rate Survey Water Volume Charges percent use a fixed monthly flat rate for all residential Water conservation prolongs existing water supplies, customers,and the remaining 8 percent use actual water use. reduces utility capital costs,and helps insure the efficient use of a valuable natural resource. One method available to utilities to encourage water conservation is through conservation rates. Carefully designed rate structures,such as water use 8% Flat inverted-block or seasonal rates, combined with other water 4r% conservation measures, have proved successful in reducing water usage in many communities. Of the utilities surveyed, there are three predominate water rate structures. Uniform or Single Block Commodity Charges apply the same rate to all water usage, irrespective of'customer type. Inverted-Block Rate Structures charge higher rates as usage increases, and Decreasing Block Rates charge lower rates for increased usage in order to accommodate high volume commercial and industrial customers who place less of a peak load on the water System. Winter7R As shown in Figure 3, 67 percent of surveyed utilities have uniform rate schedules, 17 percent have inverted-block rate structures, while 12 percent have decreasing block rate Figure 4 Residential Wastewater volume Billing Basis structures. Four percent of the utilities surveyed have a combination increasing and decreasing block rate structure. Typical Bills Typical monthly residential water and wastewater bills ate Inverted Block Decreasing Block summarized in Figures 6 and 7. Combined monthly water and 17% ,r% wastewater bills for 7,500 gallons of use average $34.47 and Other range from$14.19 to$58.92. Increasing the usage to 15,000 gallons yields an average combined residential bill of$51.58, ranging from$20.04 to$96.60. Final Comments Balancing various community needs such as low income user relief,equity,and economic development is often difficult when establishing rate structures. Comprehensive cost of service analyses combined with customer class specific rate design approaches can achieve these and other utility goals for 0 a community. Uniform Commodity If you have any questions or comments about this survey, 679% Lor would like additional information on how your community Figure 3 Types of water Rare Structures can evaluate its utility charge systems, please contact Ms. Pamela R.Lemoine,Regional Manager, Black& Veatch, 215 Columbia, Seattle,Washington 98104-1551; telephone: Wastewater Volume Charges (206) 224=4609. An important consideration in settint, wastewater volume charges is the determination of"billable" wastewater volume. How to Obtain a Copy of the Survey Most utilities use metered water consumption as a basis for The survey is available, free of charge, to cities and billing wastewater volume costs. Residential water use for districts. To request additional copies of the survey, please non-severed purposes„such as lawn irrigation.can be recog- call or write to Ms. Karyn L. Johnson at the above mentioned nixed either by reduced rates or by not including all water use address or telephone: (206)224-4678. in the amount billable for wastewater volume charges. We welcome your comments on the survey and any As shown in Figure 4, 50 percent calculate residential suggestions for additional information which could be added wastewater\olume charges using winter quarter %rater use.42 to the next survey,scheduled for September 1998. Black & Veatch 1996 Oregon Water/ Management Consulting Division 2 Wastewater Rate Survey � I 1 Figure 5 Summary Data Effective Date Residential Effective Date of Residential Community Population of Water Rate Water Rate Structure Wastewater Rate Wastewater Billing Basis Albany 29,462 1996 Decreasing Block 1996 Winter Water Usage I Ashland 16234 1994 Inverted-Bkxk 1996 Winter Water Usage Astoria 10,069 1996 Uniform 1996 Water Usage Beaverton 53310 1996 Uniform 1996 Winter Water Usage Bend 20,469 1995 Uniform 1995 Flat Coos Bay 14,998 1996 Uniform 1996 Flat Corvallis 44,757 1996 Uniform 1996 Witter Water Usage The Dalles 11.000 1996 Inverted-Block 19% Flat Eugene 112,669 1996 Uniform 1996 Winter Water Usage Grants Pass 17,488 1993 Uniform 1994 Winter Water Usage Gresham 68235 1996 Inverted-Block 1996 Flat Hermiston 10.040 1994 Decreasing Block 1994 Flat LaGrande 11,766 1996 Decreasing Block 1996 Flat Lake Oswego 30.576 1996 Uniform 1996 Winter Water Usage McMinnville 17,894 1995 Uniform 1996 Winter Water Usage Medford 46.951 1994 Uniform 1995 Winter Water Usage Milwaukee 18,692 1995 Uniform 1994 Flat Oregon City 15,000 1994 Uniform 1994 Flat Pendleton 15,126 1996 Uniform 1996 Flat Portland 437-119 1996 Inverted-Block 1996 Water Usage Roseburg 17,032 1995 Uniform 1994 Flat Salem 107.768 1996 Uniform 1996 Winter Water Usage Springfield 44,683 1996 Hybrid,(I) 1995 Winter Water Usage Tigard 31.000 1996 Uniform 1996 Winter Water Usage Note:(1)Combination of inverted-block and decreasing block rates. I Black& Veatch 1996 Oregon Water/ Management Consulting Division 3 Wastewater Rate Survey Figure 6 Monthly Water and Wastewater Bills Ranked from Lowest(1)to Highest(24) Residential Customers-7,500 Gallons Mage Community Nater Rcvrk Sewer Rank, Combined Rank S0 SK) S20 530 $40 550 $60 S70 S S S Albany 20.61. 21 17.13 11 37.74 18 Ashland 20.88 22 20.90 /8 41.78 20 Astoria. 16.00 13 15.83 8 31.83 10 Beaverton 21.93 23 25.80 21 47.73 22 Bend 8.80 2 15.16 7 23.96 3. Coos Bay 19.69 20 17.46 /4 37.15 17 Corvallis 16W 16 1850 15 3530 15 The Dalles 18.80 19 16.25 9 35.05 14 Eugene 1113 6 17.28 13 2851 6 Grants Pass 16.65 15 19:31 16 35.96 16 Greshami 1732 17 15.08 6 3240 11 Hermiston 13.48 10 13.85 4 27.33 5 LaGrande: 1259. 7 1720 12 29.79 8 Lake Oswego 13.28 9 13.28 3 26.57 4 McMinnville 9.48: 4 49.44 24 58.92 24 Medford 6.04 I 8.15 I 14.19 1 Milwaukee 16.48 14 14.78 5 31.26 9 Oregon City 26.05 24 22.60 19 48.65 23 Pendleton 1272 8 9.84 2 2256 2 Portland 14.11 /1 28.52 23 42.63 21 Roseburg 1856 18 1630 10 34.86 13 Salem 8.97 3 20.60 17 29.57 7 Springfield 10.00 5 2278 20 3278 12 Tigard 15.01 12 25.80 21 30.87 /9 Average 15.23 19.24 34.47 Median 15.54 17.24 33.82 Nae:Assumes 7500 gallons(or 1,000 cubic feet)monthly usage and a 5/8"(or nearest equivalent)meter sue. Black & Veatch 1996 Oregon Water/ Management Consulting Division 4 Wastewater Rate Survey � L Figur / Monthly Water and Wasteviater Bills Ranked from Lowest(I)to Highest(24) Residential Customers-15,000 Gallons Usage Community Water Rank Sewer Rank Combined Rank $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $ $ $ Albany 31.81 20 2094 12 52.75 15 Ashland 37.98 23 37.40 21 75.38 22 Astoria 25.75 13 26.78 14 5253 14 Beaverton 37.33 22 3630 /9 73.63 2/ Bend 14.90 4 15.16 6 30.06 3 Coos Bay 33.54 2/ 17.46 /0 51.00 13 Corvallis 2650 14 2900. 15 5550 16 Thc Dalles 29.60 /7 16:25 7 45.85 /0 Eugene 16.96 6 30.48 17 47.44 12 Grants Pass 25.35 12 3431 18 59.66 /8 Gresham 29.41 16, 1508 5 44.49 8 Hermiston 18.90 9 13.85 3 32.75 4 LaGrande 1939 10 17.20 9 3659 5 Lake Oswego 1853 8 1853 // 37.07 6 McMinn& 13.86 2 82.74 24 96.60 24 Medford 859 / 11.45 2 20.04 / Milwaukee 29.98 19 14.78 4 44.76 9 Oregon City 42.35 24 22.60 /3 64.95 20 Pendleton 17.92 7 9.84 1 27.76 2 Portland 24.35 11 53.32 23 77.67 23 Roseburg 29.96 18 16.30 8 46.26 11 Salcm 14.09 3 29.30 16 43.39 7 Springfield 15.08 5 42.08 22 57.16 /7 Tigard 28.27 15 36.30 /9 64.57 /9 Average 24.60 26.98 5158 Median 25.55 21.77 49.22 Nae:Assumes 15,000 gallons(or 2.000 cubic feet)monthly usage and a 5/8"(or nearest equivalent)meter size. Black& Veatch 1996 Oregon Water/ Management Consulting Division 5 Wastewater Rate Survey MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Ed Wegner, Director of Public Works FROM: Mike Miller, Operations Manager kw� DATE: November 4, 1996 SUBJECT: Fall Water Color During Friday evening, November 1, and Saturday morning, November 2, 1996, we received a number of calls (6) regarding water quality. All of the complaints were about "dirty' water. In actuality, "dirty" water is not dirty at all. What the customers are complaining about is water color. This is the first year that we have experienced so many calls though out the fall season regarding water color. The main reason that we are receiving a larger volume of calls is that we are purchasing approximately 81% of our water supply from Bull Run, City of Portland and Tualatin Valley Water District, and only 16% from City of Lake Oswego. The remaining 3% is from our own well water source. In years past, we have purchased 90% of our water supply from the City of Lake Oswego. Unlike Lake Oswego, Bull Run water is not filtered. Why the change in purchasing scenarios from previous years? Simply put, Portland can provide us with as much water as we need during the summer demand season. Lake Oswego cannot. In order to meet all of our summer demand, and minimize the cost of Portland water, we had to agree to purchase an average of 2.0 million gallons of water per day (mgd) from Portland. The 2.0 mgd from Portland, together with our purchases from Tualatin Valley Water District, makeup 81% of our water supply needs. Starting the first part of September, the color of water in our system begins to take on an ever-so-slight suggestion of gold or even gray. This is what triggers the questions and complaints regarding water quality. People notice the color when they fill a bath tub; toilet bowl or some may even see it in a pitcher of water. The explanation is similar to what happens when you make tea from a tea bag, only this is a diluted and pale leaf tea. Beginning in September, alder leaves start to fall and fir and cedar trees drop some needles into the Bull Run reservoirs and Clackamas River. As the leaves and needles fall ,�,, into the streams, brown pigments known as tannin and lignin leach out from the cell walls. When the rains start, leaves and needles on the ground near stream and reservoir banks contribute color to the water. There is no health hazard related to the color change. Water industry standards place colorless water at 0. The EPA has set a secondary standard for water color at 15 units. Waters above 15 are considered to have an unsatisfactory aesthetic appeal to the consumer (customer). Waters with less than 15 may only exhibit noticeable color when viewed in volume, like that in a bath tub or large pitcher. When the color is 5 units, it is difficult to see the color in a glass of water. From October to December, the color of Bull Run water averages 5 units. Unlike the City of Lake Oswego that has a water treatment plant for Clackamas River water, Portland does not have a treatment plant on the Bull Run and cannot remove the color by adding granular activated carbon. Color in Bull Run water must run its course and dissipate over time. The color is expected to end mid December.